14 ms·

Ya why would AWS have any reason to stop providing service to a customer who didn’t follow their terms of service and took pride in a festering a community of t

• brodouevencode 6y ago
  Completely not true. ISIS, Hamas, and other Wahhabistic groups still maintain a very large presence on these platforms. A little closer to home, riots and looting were planned in real time on Twitter. It's admittedly a very hard problem to solve.
  • awillen 6y ago
    How about some examples of ISIS using AWS?
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      ISIS uses AWS in the same sense the capitol hill rioters did, via services like twitter that are hosted on AWS.[1] [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1328/RAND_RR1328.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
      • dboreham 6y ago
        == they don't use AWS.
        • hnburnsy 6y ago
          I do not know if Twitter uses AWS now but it looks like they will be, I believe that Parler mentioned it in the lawsuit it filed. 'Amazon.com Inc.'s AMZN, Amazon Web Services announced Tuesday that Twitter Inc. would be using its cloud services to support its delivery of users' timeliness.' https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-its-cloud-services-to-help-scale-its-timeline-2020-12-15 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-...
          • watwut 6y ago
            Twitter was closing ISIS accounts a lot. Twitter was not "free speech except illegal" platform for ISIS at all.
      • meheleventyone 6y ago
        In 2018 Twitter banned over 1 million ISIS linked accounts. Prior to that they banned hundreds of thousands. Without much of a peep from the free speech fundamentalists.
        • kansface 6y ago
          Back in 2014, ~50K accounts were posting support for ISIS. Parlor got one day's notice. How much notice did twitter get before the liberal consensus was to remove it from the Internet for inciting hate? https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_twitter_census_berger_morgan.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw...
          • mthoms 6y ago
            >Parlor got one day's notice. Not true. AWS has been working with Parler for "several weeks" [0] to help it comply with their TOS. Not only did they fail to remove the posts Amazon provided, the calls for violence on their platform got worse during that time. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
      • aeturnum 6y ago
        If you're really going to go down this line of argument - do you think it's incorrect to say that AWS banned Parler because the Parler team can still 'use' AWS through twitter?
        • amadeuspagel 6y ago
          I'm not sure what the point of this nitpicking is. The context of this conversation is someone asking for an example of ISIS using AWS, in a conversation about the capitol hill rioters "using" AWS. And my response is that they indeed use it in the same way. Now, if you want to argue that this doesn't in fact constitute "using", then the capitol hill rioters didn't use AWS either, and AWS isn't responsible for them.
          • aeturnum 6y ago
            I think we have different reads of the root comment of this thread. Yoav[1] was talking about the contract between AWS and Parler as corporate entities. I'm not sure how you made the leap from organizational relationships to individuals using services implemented on AWS. That's why I asked about members of Parler still being able to "use" AWS through other AWS-hosted services. I don't get what you're driving at. > AWS isn't responsible for them. Again, I'm not sure I understand what point this is responding to. No one is claiming AWS is responsible for the capital hill folks. They are claiming that Parler bears some responsibility and did so in such a way that violated AWS' policies. So AWS banned them. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097
  • jmeister 6y ago
    See also Facebook in Myanmar: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > The mental gymnastics of the people defending Parler on here are wild. If Parler was a community of ISIS or any non-white non-christian extremists none of y’all would be insisting on Apple or Amazon’s requirement to do business with them and be complicit. This is a very typical of the drivel from the pro censorship crowd. Not even an attempt to formulate any coherent principle, just acccusations of bad faith, hypocrisy and racism, without any evidence whatsoever. This is the top comment as I'm writing this. This is apparently the best defense they have to offer.
  • readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Anti-fascism is a coherent principle.
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      That anything is justified as long as it's done in the same of anti-fascism is indeed a coherent principle, though not exactly one with a noble history. The official name of the Berlin Wall was Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
  • deeeeplearning 6y ago
    Aww are you sad that Stormfront 2.0 got banned and you can't be a closet Nazi with your friends anymore? How sad.
  • kordlessagain 6y ago
    Can someone flag this please? Seems to be violating the code of conduct on HN given it is attacking a user here.
    • FriendlyNormie 6y ago
      You’d look good with a serrated 7 inch SOG knife buried all the way into your neck.
  • 6y ago
• weeboid 6y ago
  It's the thinking where 100% of the product should be designed around 1% edge cases
• igammarays 6y ago
  > festering a community of terrorists This is what it feels like to live in a country like China, where if you criticize the government, or question the dominant narrative, or call for regime change, you are called a "terrorist" and denied basic rights like expression and put on no-fly lists. Anti-government rhetoric is routinely suppressed, fire-walled, and forced out. Are you sure that is what you want?
  • evgen 6y ago
    And then when you take up arms and commit sedition you get to act all surprised that actions have consequences. The people who invaded the US Capitol building ARE TERRORISTS. Pure and simple. They should be put on no-fly lists and denied basic rights like the right to exist outside of a small cell (after they are tried and convicted for their crimes.) This is what it feels like to live in a country which tries to uphold the rule of law. Sorry if it inconveniences you, but not sorry.
    • igammarays 6y ago
      I absolutely agree that those who advocated for violent acts should be investigated and punished. Go after those authors on Parler. But shutting down an entire platform, which is used by lots of other people who are NOT violent, on the basis of some violent posts? You can find far worse content on Facebook, are you going to advocate shutting down the whole platform?
      • eximius 6y ago
        And Twitter while we're at it /s
      • fimoreth 6y ago
        Facebook and Twitter do not have the violent posts solved by any measure. But at the very least they make the gestures and put money towards trying to fix it. Parler has been vocal that they have no plans solving it. If they had at least showed some vague plan to resolve it, they would have earned some sympathy.
• mitchs 6y ago
  I was initially troubled by the booting of Parler, but I've come around to seeing AWS's position as similar to the payment processors who don't want to deal with porn sites. Doing business with some clients creates risks. Traditional players don't want to deal with risky clients, but there are specialized services who are willing to take them. However, they are more expensive for the same nominal service (because of the risks.) While the payment processors are dealing with frequent charge-backs, the risks I'd see in hosting Parler are more about liability and litigation. There are clearly hosting providers (like Epik) who would be willing to take them on as clients from the start. If you read AWS's acceptable use policy, and then read the Parler's TOS, it is clear AWS was a terrible match as a hosting provider. By my read, AWS doesn't want to deal with anything that can be construed as "harmful" where Parler only forbade directly illegal behavior. (And it is apparent they barely felt a responsibility to moderate even to that level.) This was never going to work. Jan 6 brought things to a head, but as I see it, this business relationship was doomed from the start. (I work for Amazon, these opinions are my own.)
• dionian 6y ago
  Claiming 75 million people are terrorists without evidence is a bold move.
• mhh__ 6y ago
  Greenwald isn't doing mental gymnastics, this is just where he's laid his eggs now. He is full in-bed with this crowd, constantly spreading FUD about criticism of Trump, etc.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jonathantm 6y ago
  You forgot that the government forces everybody to use a single service, and will sent a SWAT team to any company not using AWS. /s
• dang 6y ago
  Please make your substantive points without posting in the flamewar style. We're trying to avoid the latter here because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for: curious, thoughtful conversation about interesting things. When accounts build up a track record of flamewar, snark, political/ideological battle, and other things that break the site guidelines, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise this place will be engulfed by hellfire and then become scorched earth. Those things may be exciting and/or activating for a while, but they're not interesting. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of this site to heart, we'd be grateful. You can still express your views in that spirit, as many other HN users have been showing.